If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[pgimeno]

OMG. You can't be serious. Your only way to try to claim I'm wrong is to throw massive complications into the issue. This is absurd. It's beyond absurd.

Let me put it this way. Either you admit gravity as an external force to the system, which therefore doesn't make application of third law valid the way you're trying to apply it, or you introduce Earth into the system, as Dave Rogers did, making it a closed system again in which Third Law is valid.

Your statement is correct, but your complications do not prove I'm wrong.

They do, but you won't admit it.

 

[DGM]

I predict suicide by mod before there's a part 4.

Doubt he'll last much longer. There are no lurkers that he imagines and people are starting to get tired of talking to themselves.

His act has gone past prime..............

 

[sts60]

At the instant of impact the acceleration changes. Acceleration changes because there is a force exerted that is in the opposite direction of the original acceleration.

Correct.

When an accelerating object experiences an acceleration in the opposite direction we say it

Also correct. But that does not happen in this case (brick breaking through a tissue). Do you see why?

 

[HSienzant]

If you want to claim I'm wrong, pick a statement and prove it's wrong. Otherwise your game is now one player, and that player is not me.

I just established your logic is faulty, so while you could presumably reach the right conclusion despite using the wrong arguments (even a broken clock is right twice a day), the chances of that are down to 'slim' and 'none'.

Hang onto that slim chance for all it's worth.

Or respond to the points instead of avoiding them.

You just said YOU get to be the arbiter of who's right and who's wrong... here's your exact words: "I will tell you whether or not it conforms to or rejects basic science..." (emphasis added)

You'll decide who's right and who's wrong, based on your understanding of the world.

Of course you will rule in your favor (won't you?) and decide anyone with a conflicting opinion is wrong (won't you?)

That's exactly what I said: "So all you're really saying is you'll accept the opinions of those who agree with you, and reject everything else."

Hank

 

[FalseFlag]

Correct.



Also correct. But that does not happen in this case (brick breaking through a tissue). Do you see why?

How can you say I'm correct and then claim that what I am correct about does not happen?

Huh?

 

[sts60]

You're right. I will never modify my position, because I know I am right. I have provided links to credible sources that show I am right.

As I pointed out in post 58 and prior posts, your validation of your rightness and your sources is entirely circular. That reduces your position to

I will never modify my position.

Is that what you really want?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Doubt he'll last much longer. There are no lurkers that he imagines and people are starting to get tired of talking to themselves.

His act has gone past prime..............

Peak Flag?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Really?

If a structure comes apart and collapses, what causes it? Forces. Forces cause the collapse. Don't you think you need to understand the nature of forces if you want to understand why and how a structure can collapse?

Do you believe in antiGravity?

 

[sts60]

How can you say I'm correct and then claim that what I am correct about does not happen?

Huh?

Take the free-falling (we'll neglect air resistance) brick's direction of travel and acceleration as positive, i.e., vectors v and a both have positive magnitudes. An acceleration in the opposite direction would mean the brick has a negative acceleration, and is thus slowing down. This would happen if the "tissue" was a thick plank of wood, or a crushable honeycomb, or a tough rubber sheet.

But it's not; in this scenario, it's a flimsy tissue. It imparts a small force before breaking, which has a negative magnitude relative to the velocity and gravity vectors, but it's much less than mg, where m is the mass of the brick. The net acceleration never goes to zero, and the velocity keeps on increasing in the negative direction. The brick does not decelerate.

Put another way, there are distinct forces at work on the brick, but there is only one acceleration - which is the vector sum of the forces, divided by the brick's mass.

 

[HSienzant]

You left out one scenario I'd be most interested in hearing your views on... what happens if floor 2 and 3 break into large free-falling chunks at the moment of impact? What happens to floor 1 in that case?

Care to discuss?

Hank

PS: Extra Credit: Which scenario did Cole's experiment test?

Cole explains what he is trying to replicate. If you want an answer to your question, consult the video.

He's not here to argue his point. You're here citing his video. Why can't you answer simple questions about it when you're the one citing that video as evidence? Or conversely, why won't you answer simple question about the video you're citing as evidence?

I will no longer answer your questions. You refuse to accept my answer, and you refuse to show why you continually claim I am wrong.

What do you mean, 'no longer'? When did you ever?

I've asked some simple questions you've refused to answer, and pointed out some conflicts in your statements [quotes without comment]. Here's an example of the latter: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11215296&postcount=421

You've refused to respond to those other than to hand-wave them away.

I don't recall continually claiming you are wrong. Perhaps you can cite three examples (the minimum, I would think, for someone to be doing it "continually").

You, and the others, just say that I'm wrong or hurl insults. I will not continue to play your games.

Quote me once hurling insults. Quote me once just saying "you're wrong" without backing it up. I've pointed out a number of logical fallacies you've utilized, and a number of contradictions in your claims. I've also asked you some simple questions.

You've punted or hand-waved them away each and every time.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I will never modify my position, because I know I am right.

Knowing one is right and actually being right are two distinctly different things.

One is only a faith-based-belief. The other is established by evidence.

Galileo believed he was right. So did the church.

In this forum, how do you know which role you are playing?

Hank

 

[beachnut]

You're right. I will never modify my position, because I know I am right. ...

The I am right, because I know I am right. This is the logic, and the reason we have 9/11 truth, a movement based on knowing they are right.
Not backed with evidence, just the belief they are right. No math, no physics, no numbers, just the ego driven concept of I am right, because I know I right.
How do you know you are right, because you say you know you are right; a never ending why, because, why...

For physics and engineering concepts, being right is based on practical application of physics, math and engineering concepts. Not opinions of what you think physics is, or what physics should be.


For Cole to make his delusional experiments look like 9/11, he had to use "explosives". Cole proves with a failed experiment, his model failed. The supersonic shock wave of the "explosives" shown in Cole's failed experiment were not in evidence on 9/11.

Cole's model, if like the WTC, would fail if he simply placed 12 floors on one floor below, yet his experiment failed to demonstrate this simple fact based on the structure of the WTC, not some paper BS models used to fool followers who have no usable skills in physics. You fail to address the fact a floor fails with 29,000,000 pounds, and seem to avoid reality based on math, and physics.

The Cole video is a delusional rant which fools those who can't think for themselves, and No points from Cole's video are supported with evidence, and his conclusions are those of a nut who has no clue he is a liar. Cole lies, and uses quote mined BS about the 9/11 commission (at 8:30 in the doltish video of woo), which is off topic for the failed physics models. NIST was not set up to fail, FBI was not set up to fail... but quote mining politicians must make Cole feel better about spreading lies and fooling people like the Boston bombers and other 9/11 truth peers too busy being right to provide evidence.

Cole's experiments are wrong because he failed to demonstrate the floors in his model could fail with the weigh of 12 more floors. Until you place 12 floors on one floor and show it fails instantly, the experiments by Cole are useless and the claims and conclusion worthless and insane.

Cole's video implications, if true are Pulitzer Prize winning material; why has Cole, you and all of 9/11 truth failed to take Cole's claims to team with a newspaper and earn a Pulitzer? The biggest Pulitzer since Watergate (aka a real conspiracy, not a theory);
When will you take the video team with a newspaper, doing an end-run on 9/11 truth and earning the Pulitzer? When?

Let me answer the question. Never.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You're right. I will never modify my position, because I know I am right. I have provided links to credible sources that show I am right.

Where you're wrong is that you assume I will keep playing the games that are going on here. That is not going to happen.

That is your mistake because you are wrong, it take an energy equal to 100% of the momentum of the falling mass to arrest collapse, the structure can only provide 36% though electromagnetic bonding of the iron Crystals in the connections, so show where they other 64% comes from and you debunk us all, here.

I know you will never do that, because you can't Chandler has implied a form of antigravity, in his calculations, that does not exist.

 

[BasqueArch]

The I am right, because I know I am right. This is the logic, and the reason we have 9/11 truth, a movement based on knowing they are right.
Not backed with evidence, just the belief they are right. No math, no physics, no numbers, just the ego driven concept of I am right, because I know I right.
How do you know you are right, because you say you know you are right; a never ending why, because, why...

For physics and engineering concepts, being right is based on practical application of physics, math and engineering concepts. Not opinions of what you think physics is, or what physics should be.


For Cole to make his delusional experiments look like 9/11, he had to use "explosives". Cole proves with a failed experiment, his model failed. The supersonic shock wave of the "explosives" shown in Cole's failed experiment were not in evidence on 9/11.

Cole's model, if like the WTC, would fail if he simply placed 12 floors on one floor below, yet his experiment failed to demonstrate this simple fact based on the structure of the WTC, not some paper BS models used to fool followers who have no usable skills in physics. You fail to address the fact a floor fails with 29,000,000 pounds, and seem to avoid reality based on math, and physics.

The Cole video is a delusional rant which fools those who can't think for themselves, and No points from Cole's video are supported with evidence, and his conclusions are those of a nut who has no clue he is a liar. Cole lies, and uses quote mined BS about the 9/11 commission (at 8:30 in the doltish video of woo), which is off topic for the failed physics models. NIST was not set up to fail, FBI was not set up to fail... but quote mining politicians must make Cole feel better about spreading lies and fooling people like the Boston bombers and other 9/11 truth peers too busy being right to provide evidence.

Cole's experiments are wrong because he failed to demonstrate the floors in his model could fail with the weigh of 12 more floors. Until you place 12 floors on one floor and show it fails instantly, the experiments by Cole are useless and the claims and conclusion worthless and insane.

Cole's video implications, if true are Pulitzer Prize winning material; why has Cole, you and all of 9/11 truth failed to take Cole's claims to team with a newspaper and earn a Pulitzer? The biggest Pulitzer since Watergate (aka a real conspiracy, not a theory);
When will you take the video team with a newspaper, doing an end-run on 9/11 truth and earning the Pulitzer? When?

Let me answer the question. Never.

Fake Fig will never admit you are right.
He'll say you left out a comma.

 

[JSanderO]

Here is a good experiment:

http://giphy.com/gifs/lol-domino-QWc1T3jPb3YLS

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

No, it does not prove I am incompetent. It actually proves you are.

Let's dissect his sentence.

"The force of gravity"

How many forces are mentioned? One.

"The force of gravity between the earth and the building"

Is there a force between two objects, or does one object exert a force on another? What is the most correct way to state this? If a person actually knew what they were talking about, wouldn't they state a claim using proper terminology?

"are"

This is plural. How many forces have been mentioned. One.

"equal and opposite to each other"

Only one force was mentioned. What force is gravity equal and opposite to?

Now, do you want to keep claiming I am wrong, or are you going to stop your nonsense and admit that I am right? You are the ones hurting your credibility, not me.

Looking back at WilliamSeger's post, it appears he forget to use 'forces' in his sentence, and that what he meant (which is bleeding obvious from the context) was simply this:

The forces of gravity between the Earth and the building are equal and opposite to each other.

In your response, you failed to recognize the simple fact that WilliamSeger was talking about plural forces ("are"), and that he was (in this sentence) talking about gravitational forces only.

Thus, your response, involving a "normal force", was simply your own mistaken reading of what was said:

What you meant to say is that the building exerts a force on the earth. This force is the force due to gravity. Since we know Newton's third law of motion is correct, the earth must exert a force that is equal and in the opposite direction. Let's call this the "normal force", because that is what it is usually called.

You are wrong. The force that the earth exerts upon the building, which is equal and opposite to the gravitational force the building exerts upon the earth, is called...

gravitational force.

That was (now) pages back in a different thread.

Since then, you have made it even more painfully obvious that you don't understand even the most rudimentary aspects of physics.

Sorry, but your attempts to weasel out of your gaffes are not going well for you.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

LOL. Your frustration due to constantly being bombarded by truth is beginning to show. Good. Let the truth keep getting under your skin.

Look, it's obvious to all and sundry that this isn't your subject. Given that, it would be wise to lurk and learn, as opposed to throwing out inane ideas indiscriminately and then getting all snotty when no-one buys your coprolites. That only serves to make you look disruptive and abrasive. Don't let your ego and confirmation bias distort your reasoning.

It's not my subject either, but I'm willing to learn from these guys, and I don't get all 'out of joint' if something I've said is wrong. Crazy chainsaw corrected an error of mine-no biggie. There's no shame in being a little out of your depth-that's the best way to learn! I know you think you've got it all figured out, but that is clearly a figment of your imagination. With experts and engineers pointing out your failures in language that I can easily understand, would it not be wise to take heed of their points, as opposed to carrying on in such an objectionable fashion?

 

[jaydeehess]

Yep, and I used that to make a bad joke at JayDeeHess' expense (sorry about that JDH)

No problem.

 

[jaydeehess]

How can you say I'm correct and then claim that what I am correct about does not happen?

Huh?

Decelleration
Is that defined as a lessening value of acceleration, or acceleration in the opposite direction?

There's the rub.

If something is accelerating at 10 m/s/s, then that acceleration changes to 8 m/s/s has it decellerated by 2 m/s/s?

Something accelerating at 10m/s/s, then that changes to -2m/s/s. Is that decelleration of 12 m/s/s or 2m/s/s?

 

[PhantomWolf]

OMG. You can't be serious. Your only way to try to claim I'm wrong is to throw massive complications into the issue. This is absurd. It's beyond absurd.

Your statement is correct, but your complications do not prove I'm wrong. They only prove that you are trying to complicate things and showboat a little. This is some hardcore BS. Do simple models to represent simple concepts add unnecessary complexity? No. If they don't do this then why are you doing this?

No, it's the same mistake you keep making, you keep on conflicting which Force pairs are to be used. The Normal Force is NOT the opposite force of Gravity, and the force applied by the floors in the collapse are not the opposite force to gravity either. When you finally understand this, you might start to understand where you are going wrong.

I'm going to use some pictures to show you were you are going wrong.

When an object sits on a surface we are actually dealing with THREE forces and THREE reactive forces. In the Illustrations below I have labeled the pairs so that (+) is the force, and (-) is the counter force.

This is our object sitting on a surface on level ground. Our Three Forces are G for Gravity, N for normal, and F for Parallel Force and Friction. The three counter forces are also shown.

G⁺ is the force of gravity pulling the object downwards to the Centre of Mass (CoM) of the Earth. G^- is the Building pulling the Earth upwards to its CoM. These are matched pairs.

The Normal Force is created as N with N⁺ the weight of the building pushing the surface downwards towards the Earth's CoM. N^- is the surface pushing the building back upwards. These are a matched pair.

Finally we have Sideways Forces. This is any force, or force component, that is parallel to the surface. It will have a matching force opposing it, this is what we call friction.

We can Illustrate these three forces below.

Now, yes, in this scenario the Force N⁺ is of the same magnitude as G⁺ and the reactive forces G^- and N^- are likewise the same magnitude. But N and G are not pairs. Rather N⁺ + F⁺ = G⁺ and N^- + F^- = G^-
The Magnitude of G only equals the magnitude of N because the magnitude of F = 0.

We can illustrate this by tilting the entire experiment by 10 degrees

Now we can clearly see that the Normal Force does not equal the Gravitational Force in either direction or magnitude. We still have our three pairs, but now because N only cancels out a part of G, F now has both a magnitude and a direction as well.

Now obviously if we continue to rotate the surface, at a certain point, F- is going to reach a maximum value that it can apply as a reactive force. At that point, our object will slide because N + F < G and as a result we will get acceleration. This again proves that the Normal Force is not the equal and opposite reaction to Gravity.